|
The Right of a People
by Douglas Wright
July 28, 2002
I. Our Task
White nationalists should not expect to receive wider society's approval
by appeals to facts, logic, spirituality or any of the other classical
persuasion techniques. That's because, for the time being, we're not
going to get it. Society is currently debating whether White
nationalists should be allowed to speak at all, to say nothing of
considering our ideas. No matter. To my way of thinking, the future of
the White race is not up for debate in any event.
Yet the real world calls. Many Whites remain asleep and must somehow be
roused. And beneath any proud refusal to debate our very existence as a
people, our cause remains just. It is in perfect accord with the laws of
nature, however difficult to articulate. In the words of the late Dr.
William Pierce, describing the racial consciousness we once had, "The
answers were in our souls, even if we couldn't express them with words."
But today, we are called upon to do just that. That task is made easier
because indeed, we do have facts, logic and spirituality on our side.
True, you won't see Frank Rich, Abe Rosenthal or William Safire writing
about it in the New York Times tomorrow morning. That might prompt a
skeptic to say, "We won't be respectfully quoted in the paper or featured
on television until AFTER the revolution, so why bother?" Possibly, but
I think the more likely scenario is a White nationalist emergence in the
coming years that will be harder to deny. One day, one of us may find
ourselves in a forum more serious than the Jerry Springer Show. A
racially unconscious but otherwise sound White person will look on,
wondering what to think. If the White nationalist is convincing and
sincere, it could make all the difference. In preparation for that day,
what's needed are positive pro-White messages that start simply but segue
to more sophisticated arguments.
One message I think worthy of development is the group right of the White
race under international law. If nothing else, an appeal to
international law is an appeal to an authority outside domestic American
law and opinion, which currently rejects us out of hand. If
"international law" sounds to you like an academic smokescreen for the
advancement of liberal interests, you're right. And make no mistake: no
international forum will be hearing our case any time soon. What we must
appeal to now is our own people. Yet there remains some legitimacy to
international law, and White nationalists should take full advantage of
the rhetorical ways in which it serves our interests.
Briefly put, public international law is a quasi-legal body of writings
and rules dealing with the relations between nations. Much of it, like
the International Criminal Court in the news of late, is dismissed by
even mainstream conservatives as illegitimate. But early on, it dealt
with such practical concerns as how to treat foreign commercial ships
during war. A basic realization was that even if two nations are at war,
there are certain things neither would want done to itself, or even see a
need to perpetrate, thus creating an incentive to form mutual agreements.
An agreement not to torture civilians without military purpose, for
instance.
II. International Law Applies to the White Race
It was not until the sun began to set on colonialism that international
law began to address racial groups, and even then, it wasn't explicit
about biological racial groups, focusing instead on the indigenous status
of colonized peoples. Yet the White race, however unconscious of itself
and despite its existence in different countries across the globe, is a
people under international law. That thought was inspired by two things:
One, Victor Gerhard's VNN essay, "The Revolution Will Not Be Legalized,"
which details the futility of expecting White nationalism to be achieved
through our current U.S. legal system, and two, Rev. Matt Hale's citation
of a United Nations declaration in support of White rights. Both are
right, but I would like to combine the two arguments for added strength.
American law explicitly forbids Whites from having their own community,
yet international law affirms the rights of racial groups to do just
that. In other words, the illegitimacy of U.S. law as it applies to the
White race strengthens our claim under international law. The cobblers
of the international law declarations no doubt were thinking of little
brown people, not Whites, but have, in true liberal fashion, hung
themselves with their own ropes. White people are also a racial group,
and international jurists would hard-pressed (but don't put it too far
past them) to deny the existence or humanity of White people. In the
event that happens, the issue's been forced, and many sleepy Whites will
be jolted awake. "Hey, Mabel, the man on TV says we're not human because
we're White!"
Here is what the U.N. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples, (U.N.G.A. Res. 1514(XV), Dec. 14, 1960),
says: "The General Assembly... declares that... The subjugation of
peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a
denial of fundamental human rights... All peoples have the right to
self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their
political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural
development." A VNN reader might make the connection that for us, Jews
are alien subjugators. Indeed, I can think of no more serious
subjugation, albeit by subtle trickery instead of brute force, than for
young White American men to be sent to die in a Zionist war in the Middle
East at the behest of Paul D. Wolfowitz, Jon Podhoretz and company. Yet
it is the final sentence that affirms our cause: "ALL peoples have the
right to self-determination..." It doesn't say, "some people," or make a
distinction between "oppressors and the oppressed." All means all.
Even, I suppose, if we Whites are too dull to see what's really happening
to us, much less do anything about it.
Further support for White nationalism as part of international law comes
from the word "national" itself. "National," like natal and renaissance,
is derived from birth. Birth, much more than the place of occurrence,
means blood ties, and that means race. To be a nationalist is to be a
racialist. The real "nations" of the world are not borders on maps but
racial groups, bound by more than geography, history, language and common
culture. No group demonstrates this better than Jews, who operate
largely without their own country. Races are bound, like father, mother,
son, daughter, brother and sister, by biological kinship. This concept
is bolstered by the body of racial and ethnic difference scholarship,
from authors such as J. Phillippe Rushton and Richard Lynn, on blacks, to
Kevin MacDonald, on Jews. But it's further bolstered by simple
observation of the world around us: Races cluster. Jam them together,
and they fluster.
Thomas Aquinas made distinctions among what he called "eternal law,"
"natural law" and "human law." Scholars say that what Aquinas meant by
"eternal law" was essentially scientific -- the laws of physics, for
instance. To the extent I grasp the amorphous concept, "natural law" was
a reference to what governs the behavior of human beings with free will,
or the imperative to do good and avoid evil. "Human law," meanwhile,
meant everything from the common law Rule Against Perpetuities to the
Posse Comitatus Act in the federal criminal code -- laws people made. In
Aquinas' view, a human law is valid only if it conforms with natural law,
all of which operated within the realm of eternal law. The English legal
chronicler William Blackstone picked up on the natural law theme, calling
natural law superior to any other obligations, "binding over all the
globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any
validity, if contrary to this..." What I draw from Aquinas and
Blackstone is that human laws, and the human arrangements they create,
must be consistent with something we instinctively or intuitively feel as
right. Too, that it's entirely possible for human law to be in conflict
with this, and that when that is the case, appeal may be had to other
authorities. As it stands for Whites, nothing could be more unnatural
than our current social arrangement with other races.
III. American Law Violates Whites' Right of Community
For the purposes of White nationalism, the conflicting human law in
question is American law. Specifically, it is the Fourteenth Amendment
to the United States Constitution, enacted after the Civil War along with
the Thirteenth, which outlawed black slavery, and the Fifteenth, which
granted black males the right to vote. The Fourteenth Amendment states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No STATE shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,
nor shall any STATE deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (emphasis added). In other
words, the Illinois legislature could not pass a law saying that blacks
would be sentenced to ten years and Whites five for the same crime.
This, of course, makes no sense, given racial differences. Gun laws, for
instance, are written to keep guns out of the hands of both blacks and
Whites. Never mind that blacks, who ignore these laws in any event, are
statistically far more likely to use them for violent and illegal
purposes. Or take the Constitutional protections afforded a person
charged with a crime. Originally written by Whites and for Whites to
ensure that the right person is convicted, our race now expends untold
sums extending these same rights to a constant stream of black and
Hispanic animals who commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes in
the U.S. and who've never read the Constitution to begin with.
A point missed by most Americans is that the Fourteenth Amendment, like
the Constitution itself, applies only to government action, not private
people. That meant that if I personally wanted to keep blacks out of my
store, I had every right to do so. A series of Supreme Court decisions
known as the "Civil Rights Cases" in the 1880s (109 U.S. 3, 1883)
affirmed just that. In striking down the Civil Rights Act of 1875, a
federal law that forced White innkeepers and theater owners to accept
black "patrons" -- and slapped them with $500 fines if they did not -- the
Supreme Court said that indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment makes no mention
of private action, only state action. Needless to say, the 1883 Supreme
Court's logic did not stand. Race-mixers eventually found ways around,
either by invoking the Commerce Clause (because denying blacks access to
barbecue restaurants on the interstate highway is bound to have an effect
on interstate commerce) or through creative interpretations of what
counted as "state action" for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.
One Supreme Case, Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), involved a White
neighborhood in St. Louis that quite sensibly wanted to keep blacks out.
To that end, in 1911, 39 of the property owners signed a restrictive
covenant preventing the sale of houses to non-Caucasians for a period of
50 years. A later White property owner -- who I suspect was not among the
original 39 and was unaware of the restrictive covenant, sold to Shelley,
a black. Shelley moved in and the other property owners cried foul. The
Missouri state court agreed, as did the Supreme Court -- at least for the
first few paragraphs of the decision. Then, in a stroke of legal
manipulative genius, it said that because the state court was called upon
to enforce the private covenant, that was the "state action" needed to
make the Fourteenth Amendment applicable. Result: the blacks stay. And
you know what happens to the neighborhood after that.
Today, Whites pay for the forced acceptance of blacks into their
communities through higher insurance costs, law enforcement costs, retail
costs and taxes, to say nothing of the loss of White racial association.
As anyone who's had the thoroughly unpleasant experience of watching a
movie with blacks can tell you, this is no minor matter. From
Philadelphia to Kansas City, the unruly blacks whoop and yell at the
screen and urinate on the theater floor. Whites are denied the right to
sit next to a calm, pleasant White person. Like slaves ripped from their
brothers and sisters, Whites are forcibly cleaved from their racial
family members. If you don't believe force is involved, just try defying
federal law and see how far you get. Almost no sphere of White life is
untouched by the federal government's shoving of blacks and other
minorities down our throats. It is illegal for most White employers to
refuse to hire blacks. It is illegal for many White landlords to refuse
to rent to Hispanics, no matter how loud the merengue music. This is a
wholly illegitimate system of law. Since its inception by Hugo Grotius
in the 1600s, international law has acknowledged the sovereignty of
nations. Today, it is the sovereignty of the White race, a natural
nation, that suffers while others flourish. This system must change or
fall.
IV. Revolution: Paradox of the Law
No nation on earth, the United States included, would "allow" revolution.
It's not technically "legal," even, I suppose, under international law.
When it happens, it happens. Blood flows in the street, and the new
regime steps in, for better or worse. This is how the American
Revolution of the late 18th century unfolded. Or, in the case of the
United States' second revolution -- the one that saw Whites lose power and
living space to other races -- it happened slowly, by a gradual takeover
of ideas and institutions by other races and smoothed by the acquiescence
of the dominant people. The commonality is inertia: it's overcome
quickly, with weapons, or slowly, with covert action and message
manipulation. How Whites will overcome the inertia that threatens their
racial survival remains to be seen. But the inertia is glacial, and
there will be no "civil disobedience" allowed to Whites. Refusal to
abide by race-destroying American law will be met with a hail of bullets,
not sympathetic reports by Peter Jennings. What I have tried to
demonstrate in this essay is that Whites have racial rights under
international law, even if they do not have racial rights under American
law. The hope is that assertion of these rights will put Whites on a
peaceful path to racial survival. But even if our rights remain
unrecognized in any forum, domestic, international or media, we still
have them. We need only declare them.
So what happens if the declaration falls on deaf ears? Don't forget
about this declaration, now worth repeating: "When in the course of
human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume
among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to
the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes
which impel them to the separation... When a long train of abuses and
usurpations... evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to
provide new guards for their future security." In other words, we've
tried reasoning with you. We told you what the problem was, and what we
wanted. We got no response. You've left us no choice but to act. So
we're now putting you on notice. We have declared ourselves independent,
and the consequences will be what they will be. For Whites, it has not
yet come to this. But we can draw strength from the knowledge that for
our forefathers, it did, and for almost a century, they prevailed.
DOUGLAS WRIGHT
|